Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1975 |
| Date | 1975 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Bahama Islands - Land - Possession - Claim of possessory title acquired by rotational farming - Whether physical use of whole area necessary to establish possessory title -
By a petition to the Supreme Court the respondent sought grant of a certificate of title under section 17 (1) (c) of the Quieting Titles Act 1959 in respect of two tracts of land, basing its claim to ownership in fee simple in possession on documentary titles. An adverse claim was filed by H claiming ownership in fee simple of the lands based on a possessory title acquired by rotational farming of the lands for the requisite prescribed time. The trial judge found that the respondent had proved perfect documentary titles in respect of each of the two tracts and that the adverse claimant had not ousted the respondent by proving 20 years' continuous and exclusive possession of the whole land, and accordingly dismissed the adverse claim and granted a certificate of title to the respondent. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by H, but in affirming the decision of the trial judge placed reliance on Ocean Estates Ltd. v. Pinder [
On appeal by the appellants, H's executors, to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that there was no general principle that to establish possession of an area of land a claimant had to show that he had made physical use of the whole of it; that acts done on part of the land could establish possession of the whole land and whether those acts did establish possession was a question of fact and degree and depended on a consideration of all the circumstances (post, pp. 79F–80B).
(2) That since the trial judge did not reach his conclusion simply in obedience to a supposed principle of law but had considered the facts, there was no ground for interfering with his decision on the evidence (post, p. 80C–E).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Clark v. Elphinstone (
Jones v. Williams (
Lord Advocate v. Lord Blantyre (
Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat (
Ocean Estates Ltd. v. Pinder [
Paradise Beach & Transportation Co. Ltd. v. Price-Robinson [
Smith v. Lloyd (
Stanley v. White (
Trustees, Executors, & Agency Co. Ltd. v. Short (
West Bank Estates Ltd. v. Arthur [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Burroughs v. M'Creight (
Cadija Umma v. S. Don Manis Appu [
Haig v. West [
Leigh v. Jack (
Nesbitt v. Mablethorpe Urban District Council [
Robins v. National Trust Co. Ltd. [
Wuta-Ofei v. Danquah [
APPEAL (No. 11 of 1971) from a judgment (November 5, 1970) of the Court of Appeal of the Bahama Islands (Bourke P., Archer and Hogan JJ.A.), dismissing an appeal by Clotilda Eugenie Higgs (who had since died and for whom her executors, Kenneth McKinney Higgs and Eric Alliday Higgs, had been substituted as appellants) from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Bahama Islands (H. C. Smith J.) in favour of the respondent, Nassauvian Ltd., granting a certificate of title to the respondent in respect of two defined tracts of land in the Western district of the island of New Providence and dismissing the adverse claim.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Gerald Godfrey Q.C. and P. J. Millett Q.C. for the appellants.
Jeremiah Harman Q.C. and Nigel Hague for the respondent.
October 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR HARRY GIBBS.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Bahama Islands affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Bahama Islands (Smith J.) given in favour of the respondent, Nassauvian Ltd., in proceedings brought under the Quieting Titles Act 1959.
The proceedings were commenced by a petition presented to the Supreme court on August 23, 1967, by the respondent which claimed to be the owner in fee simple in possession of (1) an undivided one-fourth part of or interest in a tract of land 92.33 acres in area, on the island of New Providence (“tract A”), and (2) a parcel of land comprising 12.52 acres adjacent to tract A (“tract B”). The respondent's claim to each tract of land was based on a documentary title. Adverse claims were filed by Clotilda Eugenie Higgs and Roger Charles Adderley, stating, in each case, that the claimant claimed an undivided interest in fee simple in the lands the subject of the petition. These statements of the adverse claims did not reveal the real issues in the case, for although it is uncontested that the adverse claimants have an undivided interest in tract A, their claims were not based on that fact but on the contention that they had acquired a possessory title to the lands in both tracts, and on the further assertion that the documentary titles on which the respondent relies are invalid.
Smith J. found against the adverse claimants on both issues. An appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal by both adverse claimants, but Roger Charles Adderley withdrew his appeal and has played no part in the subsequent proceedings. The decision that the respondent had established a valid documentary title was not challenged either before the Court of Appeal or before their Lordships' Board. On the question whether the adverse claimants had acquired a possessory title, the Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of Smith J. Clotilda Eugenie Higgs obtained leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal but she has since died and her executors have been substituted in her place as appellants.
It does not appear to have been in contest that tract A formed part of a larger area which was in 1873 granted to one Alliday Adderley. In 1890, the land was conveyed to Joseph Richmond Adderley, William Campbell Adderley, Daniel Dewellmair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers Development Company Ltd v The Bahamas Telecommunications Company Ltd
...the Supreme Court decision of Nottage v Finlayson [1994] BHS J No. 35, per Hall, J at paragraph 156 the Privy Council authority on Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd. [1975] 2 WLR 72 PC per Sir Harry Gibbs at p. 76. 28. The learned Judge erred in law and fact and misdirected herself at paragraph 15 of......
-
Anthony Armbrister and Another v Marion E Lightbourn and Another
...reviewing concurrent findings where "there has been some miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure": Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd [1975] AC 464, The Quieting Titles Act 1959 and other statutory provisions 7 The purpose of the 1959 Act is to provide a judicial proc......
-
Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners
...were of any commercial value.”—see also Lord O'Hagan at page 289. 59 A more modern example is to be found in Higgs v Nassauvian Ltd [1975] AC 464 where the land, questions as to which arose, were two tracts, one of some 92 and the other of some 12 acres. The land was part arable, part pine ......
-
Robert Gormandy v Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation
...this type of use referred by the parties were Bligh v Martin [1968] 1 WLR 804, the Privy Council decision of Higgs v Nassauvian Limited [1975] AC 464 and our Court of Appeal's decision in Bissessar v Lall. As explained above, in assessing agricultural land holdings in this territory, the U......
-
Preliminary Sections
...O.B.D. 561 at 563. 147 Heyman & Ancr. v. Darwins Ltd. (1942) 1 All E R 337 650 Hick v. Raymond (1893) AC 22. 391 Higgs v. Nassauvian Ltd. (1975) AC. 464. 701 Howden v. Yorkshire Miners Association (1903) 1 K.B. 308. 376 Howell v. Dering (1915) 1 K.B. 54 361 Hoystead v. The Commissioner of T......
-
Table of Cases
............................................................................................433, 438, 604, 616 Higgs v. Nassauvian Ltd. (1975) A.C. 464....................................................648 Highways Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas Co. Ltd. (1971) 17 D.L.R. 710.......707 Hill......
-
FISHING VESSELS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 213(1) OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT CAP. M11 LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA 2004
...may rank also as a means of proving ownership of the land in dispute. (See Section 45 of the Evidence Law). See Higgs v. Nassauvian Ltd. (1975) A.C. 464. In that case which went on Appeal to the Privy Council from the Bahamas Islands, The Board commented at p. 474 (Sir Harry Gibbs, deliveri......